There is an argument many use to defend UA
in spite of all inconsistencies and inaccuracies. It says:

“It’s
just a game, and you don’t need to be able to explain everything. Artistic licence
must be allowed.”

I’d like to take a stand on it.

Three
points

Said argument consists of three points:

Artistic licence is more important
than consistency.

You need not explain everything, there should still be secrets left.

It’s
just a game.

Artistic license

Although this discussion is not centered
around UA only, it’s still mainly
about this one game. I think I can honestly claim that the inconsistencies would not have bothered
me if UA had stayed true to the Ultima
spirit in general, which was not the case, though.

Yes, I would not have been overly
annoyed by the fact that Empath Abbey is located at the other side of Britannia in UA,
if I had found an interesting and rich quest about the role of the principle of Love in the
8 Virtues there, instead of a stupid ordinary “Light a candle for the 1000th time and
jump around a bit” riddle.

However, as things turned to be, I just yawned, and
all that remained as the impression that it had been the work of developers who had no clue
about Ultima.

I didn’t experience the liberty taken by the developers as art,
but rather as a very bad simplification of all things that I had loved about the Ultima series.

Especially
Ultima 6 and Ultima 7 already had
some inconsistencies. For example, the wingless Gargoyles could suddenly speak in Ultima 7.
But those mistakes didn’t bother anyone. Why not? Because the Gargoyles’ integration
into the Fellowship plot was done well nonetheless.

Another very important point to consider
is certainly this one: UA simply had
worse or bigger mistakes. For example, the entire moongate system
being replaced by a new one would have been unthinkable in Ultima 4-7.

Likewise, the
complete geographical upheaval of Britannia, explained by the half-hearted “It’s
been the Columns” explanation, was clearly too much. In this case, the developers did
not have artistic ideals in mind; they just wanted to make the game more simple and easier.

Inconsistencies,
mistakes, and atmosphere

Atmosphere is an important part of every roleplaying game.
I want to immerse in the world, lose the feeling of my own reality, and become part of the
game’s world. All of this was brilliantly accomplished in Ultima 4-7. I’ve been
the Avatar, I’ve been there, I’ve been in Britannia.

So why was the atmosphere
in these games so good despite of the outdated graphics?

There were a number of reasons,
and most of them have to do with freedom. You had moral and plot-wise freedom, as well as the
freedom of interacting with the game world in any way you liked (to a certain degree). Though
there was another reason: The game’s world appeared to be plausible, especially in Ultima
7. There was real policy in Britain, along with a corrupt mayor and the influence of a dangerous
sect. There were brutal murders and dark schemes in the whole kingdom. This wasn’t made
for 10- to 15-year-olds anymore; it was already targeted for an older age group. Ultima was
mature; Britannia made sense and was realistic.

At this point, consistency in the storyline
comes into play. As an experienced Ultima player, you knew what happened in the predecessors,
and you were looking forward to see Britannia’s development in each new game. Inconsistencies
involving the disregard of preceding games destroy this feeling of consistency, and neither
do plot errors concerning the actual game serve plausibility well.

The bigger the inaccuracy,
the more atmosphere is destroyed. In Ultima 4-8 (or 5-8 for that matter, since Ultima 4 didn’t
have actual predecessors), these inconsistencies were minimal. OK, Buccaneer’s Den had
suddenly grown in Ultima 7, and Seggallion had disappeared, but who cared? I could still wander
to Yew across Serpent’s Spine and ask my companions what they had been up to in the meantime.

In
Ultima IX, the inconsistencies overshoot the mark of tolerance. Each larger scene reminds you
that it’s just a game by some big inconsistency. You are thrown out of the game’s
world, so often that you can’t ever really stay in.

The game begins on Earth, you
hear Hawkwind’s voice, and no word is said about the end of Ultima 8. And as soon as
you think about Ultima 8 for precisely this reason and wonder what you missed, your mind is
back in reality and not in the game.

Don’t explain everything

The dosage
makes poison out of medicine and vice versa. Too many plot holes spoil a game, while finding
an explanation for every oddness in the storyline would be hilarious, too. Explaining
how the Codex ended up in the Ethereal Void, or how Gargoyles reproduce, is senseless. A good
fantasy story depends on mysteries surrounded by legend.

Some plot elements are simply
so good that you tolerate inconsistencies. For example, the sidequest with the Emps in Ultima
7 was so good that you gladly forgot about the fact that there had been no silverleaf trees
in any preceding Ultima. Of course, this does not hold true for things like the complete disregard
of Underworld 2 in Ascension. The inconsistency was necessary for the subquest in Ultima 7.
Disregarding Underworld 2 in Ultima IX was not necessary.

So the question is:
What parts of Ultima are worth being nitpicked? Which mistakes are bad enough to destroy a
game’s atmosphere?

It’s the personal opinion of every fan. However, in my
opinion, Ultima 4 to 8 were much better balanced between small plot holes and the complete
explanation of all mysteries in the series than UA,
which tends too far towards plot holes. I can back up my point of view with a statistic;
just compare the number of UA
nitpicks listed on this site with the number of nitpicks listed for all the older Ultimas
combined.

Furthermore, I must add that many nitpicks aren’t meant to be as serious,
at least not those of the older Ultimas. Most of them can be tolerated. This does not hold
true for the majority of UA’s
inaccuracies, though, for the reasons stated above.

It’s just a game

A
final world on the usual “It’s just a game!” killer argument. Yes, Ultima
is just a game, but since Ultima 4, and before UA,
the series also had a literary, or even philosophic value. The Ultima series proved that computer
games can very well be a serious art form. Thus, vets see big plot mistakes (which mainly appear
in Ultima IX) like dirty graffiti on the Mona Lisa.

Nevertheless, I must partly agree
to the "It’s just a game" statement. Having a fight about a computer
game is as stupid as having a fight about any other art form. It’s important to me that
nitpicking is mainly fun for you. Even when inaccuracies and plot holes destroy a game (which
in my opinion is onlythe case in Ascension, due to the number and weight
of the inaccuracies), I try to describe them with humor, and with a grain of salt. After all,
it’s actually nitpicking itself which points out that we are dealing with nothing but
fictional worlds on our computer screens and in our fantasies. Weird explanations for inaccuracies
(and simple ones mostly too) are one of the least important parts of “Hacki’s Ultima
Page”.